France Convicts 5 Gitmo Inmates

[quote]pookie wrote:

I can see you point, and they’re not unreasonable positions to hold. I still would like to know when “the war on terror” will be considered over. If those people are prisoners of war, then it is normally expected that they’ll be released/exchange/tried once the war ends. When does the WOT do so?
[/quote]

I seriously wonder if a drug dealer from a US street gang is not perfectly within his rights to shoot a cop.

If he is with the cribs for example he wears the insignia of a militia, they have a command structure and they barely hide their arms.

I am sure there are similar examples for the WOT.

Or maybe all this war on whatever talk is some serious barely thought through BS in general.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Care to answer?

Obviously, and just like the crushing majority of people around here, I highly condemn such actions.

Let me rephrase my question: knowing that many such kidnapped people were cases of mistaken identity, what is your response? Are you among those that say “shit happens”? Are you OK with guilty until proven innocent?[/quote]

You condemn brutal actions only when cornered. Otherwise, you have to be pressed into showing sympathy to a 16 year old “slut” that “played with fire and got burned.” You’re the one who played apologist for the use of children to plant road side bombs. Or, for terrorists to use human shields. Don’t come to me like you have the moral high ground.

By, the way, mistaken identity is a direct result of a policy you played apologist for. Remember the back and forth we had about not wearing uniforms, or at least a clear militia marking, and hiding among civilians? I remember it all too well.

[quote]pookie wrote:
I don’t know many people advocating for the unconditional release of the Gitmo prisoners.

Most people who don’t agree with Gitmo would simply like to see the prisoners there get charged and be given a trial. If they’re found guilty after a trial, then you can hold them for as long as their crime requires.

The main problem is that “enemy combatant” is an extremely flexible concept that could (will? has?) be applied to just about anyone the authorities find inconvenient to have around. Bill H.R. 1955 is, according to some critics of it, a first step towards holding US citizens in places like Gitmo with no more legal recourse than the current prisoners.

Someone could also find himself there simply because of faulty intelligence, mistaken identity or whatever, and have no recourse to get the situation corrected.

When a government - any government, not just the US one - puts in place a no-trial prison, and holds people there, citizens should be concerned, regardless of who is initially kept there. It is a safe bet that as long as it has the tacit accord of the public, the government will only seek to widen the criteria that decide who can be held.

[/quote]
Hit the nail on the head. My sentiments exactly.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You condemn brutal actions only when cornered. Otherwise, you have to be pressed into showing sympathy to a 16 year old “slut” that “played with fire and got burned.” [/quote]

Now that’s some serious fact twisting.

I repeat: I condemn ANY form of violence that isn’t immediate and unambiguous self-defense.

From there, I did condemn the Iranian law and the tragic mishandling of the girl’s case. I did also point out that, to avoid trouble in Iran, one should not engage in out-of-wedlock sex. It’s silly, but it’s the rules over there. I don’t like kids doing hard time for a bag of weed, but it’s the rules in some places in the US, and anyone who gets caught indeed “played with fire and got burned”.
I called here a “slut” for doing a married man for years. I have not seen convincing evidence that she was coerced into having sexual relations with the said man. But how about taking all this in the appropriate thread

I did? Where?

Geez…not only do you not address my point - which I made perfectly - but you also play dumb.

I am talking about CIA people abducting innocents who have nothing to do with militias. It’s got nothing to do with uniforms or markings. It’s piss-poor intelligence, and better-torture-him-just-in-case mentality.

We’re not discussing American soldiers indiscriminately shooting at Iraqi civilians because - surprise! - the locals are trying to kill the invading foreign troops. This is about perfectly innocent people kidnapped from their own homes, detained in airports and flown to secret prisons to be tortured.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Care to answer?

Obviously, and just like the crushing majority of people around here, I highly condemn such actions.

Let me rephrase my question: knowing that many such kidnapped people were cases of mistaken identity, what is your response? Are you among those that say “shit happens”? Are you OK with guilty until proven innocent?

You condemn brutal actions only when cornered. Otherwise, you have to be pressed into showing sympathy to a 16 year old “slut” that “played with fire and got burned.” You’re the one who played apologist for the use of children to plant road side bombs. Or, for terrorists to use human shields. Don’t come to me like you have the moral high ground.

By, the way, mistaken identity is a direct result of a policy you played apologist for. Remember the back and forth we had about not wearing uniforms, or at least a clear militia marking, and hiding among civilians? I remember it all too well.[/quote]

Not that that has anything to do with the people in Gitmo.

If I get kidnapped out of my own bed I am neither armed, nor in uniform.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060530/ai_n16432166

Get on with it at Gitmo
Oakland Tribune, May 30, 2006

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT knows its holding innocent people in the Guantanamo Bay military prison, but it is in no rush to release them.

In fact, some 38 prisoners have been declared to be “no longer enemy combatants,” according to military documents. Some were caught up in sweeps after the invasion of Afghanistan; others were sold to U.S. forces.

Military tribunals have determined that these people have been mistakenly held and that there is no evidence they are connected to terrorism, yet they continue to languish in tiny cells in Cuba. If that’s true, the military’s designation is misleading – the inmates not only are “no longer” enemy combatants, they never were. In some cases, those who have been cleared tell of being sold to the Americans by ruthless countrymen eager to make a buck.

Most of Gitmo’s 460 guests have been held for more than four years without charges. Last Friday, a U.N. panel called for the facility to close, saying it violates the 1984 Convention Against Torture.

Holding suspects indefinitely without charges is antithetical to American values, morals and the justice system. That the U.S. knows some of the prisoners are innocent makes it worse. It’s time for the Bush administration to release those it knows are innocent and allow the rest to have their day in court.

We can understand the need to have a short-term holding facility for terrorism suspects, but it’s an outrage that innocent people are being held indefinitely.

The administration’s says it’s holding some inmates because it may not be safe for them to return to their countries of origin. After essentially kidnapping them from their native land, it’s curious that the White House is suddenly acting so concerned about their safety. There’s no reason not to grant them asylum if they truly are innocent.

But what lesson do we draw from this?

If you see American forces better try to kill them for real because then you are a soldier and get treated quite well, if you just happen to live in the area without being armed or fighting Americans you are royally fucked and have no rights whatsoever.

The very fact that the had no weapons or uniforms make the guilty?

Is that what you are trying to say, because that is the consequence of your line of thinking.

[quote]Sloth Wrote:

You’re the one who played apologist for the use of children to plant road side bombs.

Lixy Wrote: I did? Where?

[/quote]

This is why I shouldn’t bother. Playing dumb is a stragety you rely heavily on. If it works for you, fine. But, I’m spinning my wheels by playing along.

“I believe kids have every right to defend their country. Women and the elderly too. If that means planting bombs to push back the invader, I see nothing wrong with giving them the opportunity to defend their land. If they’re forced to do it, it’s a different story. But I never heard of such cases.”
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1780133&pageNo=1

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is why I shouldn’t bother. Playing dumb is a stragety you rely heavily on. If it works for you, fine. But, I’m spinning my wheels by playing along.

“I believe kids have every right to defend their country. Women and the elderly too. If that means planting bombs to push back the invader, I see nothing wrong with giving them the opportunity to defend their land. If they’re forced to do it, it’s a different story. But I never heard of such cases.”
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1780133&pageNo=1 [/quote]

I wasn’t playing dumb. Just didn’t recall doing so. Thanks for digging it up.